Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 463 - 413

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

463. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


I agree. Electric bikes are the answer.

They can be charged with a fairly small windmill or solar panel and they don't poop inside. All we need are the whiner parties to create more bike lanes on existing roads.



who is the whiner party??
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
Quoting yoboi:


wow ya got me pegged wrong....i will admit i am a leader i don't sit around and cry about things, if i have that much passion about something i will get up and do something about it....if ya think the gop is the only problem with CC your hopless...


GOP and Teaparty are the worst thing right now in terms of finding a solution.

I am all for open source, crowd based, market solutions.

But market solutions only work when the problem is monetized. Unfortunatly, this problem will never become monetized because the atmosphere is pretty much the definition of a common good.

That means the goverment has to do the monetizing artificially. The GOP and Tea Party are sitting their butts with their heads in the sand pretending this problem doesn't exist. They are actively blocking the solutions.

So yea, at the moment, the GOP/TP is the worst problem in America.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
461. yoboi
bob wall you do make very good points but how do we make that transition??? who is going to lead the cause???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
Geoscientist and climate expert Richard Alley connects the dots of temperature to show the difference between short-term trends and long term direction

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting yoboi:


cost of feed for a horse has doubled since july because of drought and corn supplies, also whats messed up the gov forces corn to be turned into ethanol making the price go even higher....bad times coming bad bad bad times....


I agree. Electric bikes are the answer.

They can be charged with a fairly small windmill or solar panel and they don't poop inside. All we need are the whiner parties to create more bike lanes on existing roads.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
458. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


In case you wanted to find like minded people who sit on their duffs demanding more necessities (as opposed to cowboys for example), I include some links.

Sit on their butts demanding more party

Steal softly but scream 'No more corruption' party

They pretty much agree with you and are pretty much traitors, in my in this case not so humble opinion.


wow ya got me pegged wrong....i will admit i am a leader i don't sit around and cry about things, if i have that much passion about something i will get up and do something about it....if ya think the gop is the only problem with CC your hopless...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
457. etxwx
Re post #431 - Very good point, Oldleatherneck. In that practical spirit I would like to offer this month's: Texas Co-op Power Magazine

This magazine goes out to every Texas rural electric co-op member. The story emblazoned on the cover is:
"Water for all: Wake up Texas, Our water crisis demands action NOW. If Texans don’t wake up to the realities of drought and absolute musts of conservation, we’re going to experience water shortages of epic proportions."

The magazine presents a series of articles beginning here discussing aquifers, drought, conservation, the effects of drought on hydro-electric, and how San Antonio is implementing desalinization of brackish groundwater.

What is important to know is that this magazine goes out to a LOT of rural Texans - many of whom are quite conservative in their political views. The articles address economic consequences of water shortages and that reality should get folks attention. And it does mention climate change.

There's also a sidebar about wind power in Texas here.

Scientific arguments are important, but sometimes it's practical or economic issues that get more people's attention. If practical or economic considerations get people moving in the right direction, that's a good thing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
456. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


No. The solution is to put into place renewable energy sources BEFORE we are FORCED to go back to the dark ages. Despite the thinking of a few, fossil fuels are NOT an endless source of energy for us to use. What may be an even more startling realization for these people is that the fossil fuels will become too cost prohibitive to use long before they actually become depleted. ... Next time you pull up to the gas pump ask yourself this, "How much longer will I be able to afford the ever escalating costs of this?! ... Geeeeze! I am going to have to get a horse!". .... Ah, the dark ages. Seems the horses may have favored them less than even we did. ;-)


cost of feed for a horse has doubled since july because of drought and corn supplies, also whats messed up the gov forces corn to be turned into ethanol making the price go even higher....bad times coming bad bad bad times....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
Quoting yoboi:



most people are on board with CC; but what i see lacking is what are we going to do about it??? hard to give up certain neccessities once ya have attained them....there are more people on the globe gaining advanced living conditions thus = pollution who is going to decide who has to cut back now???


In case you wanted to find like minded people who sit on their duffs demanding more necessities (as opposed to cowboys for example), I include some links.

Sit on their butts demanding more party

Steal softly but scream 'No more corruption' party

They pretty much agree with you and are pretty much traitors, in my in this case not so humble opinion.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
453. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


The rest of the world is doing something.

The US is definitely not in the lead when it comes to doing something. We are tagging along behind.

--

No one has to cut back. We just have to use different energy inputs. Walk away from fossil fuels and use sunlight, wind, deep-Earth heat, tidal movement and a few other widely available and plentiful energy sources.

It's something like moving from horses to cars. When we used horses it was because we didn't have a better alternative. Once cars were invented and became practical we moved away from horses.

We, IMO, are at a point of massive change for the world. It's the end of the fossil fuel era and the beginning of the renewable energy era.

Less developed parts of the world are likely to become ~100% renewable energy countries faster than the US because they will don't have fossil fuel infrastructure to "protect". Just like they totally smoked us in adopting cell phones.


do ya think india & china is leading the way???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
452. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


I think I might bust something if I worked hard enough to fully understand that post.

Let me just say "Have a nice day"....


huh???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
451. Xandra
8:01 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
From HOT TOPIC NZ:

ARCTIC SEA ICE FORECAST: IT’S GOING TO BE TOUGH TO STAY COOL

by Gareth on August 12, 2012

Bad news from the Arctic is piling up as we head into the last few weeks of the melting season. The various measures of sea ice area, volume and extent are plummeting towards a new record minimum. I have therefore reviewed the history of Arctic sea ice melting seasons since 2007, and compiled my own forecast of how the rest of the year is going to pan out. Remember, you read it here first...

When Arctic sea ice area sets a new record low in the next couple of weeks, the usual suspects will say: "You can’t trust area, sea ice extent is the only valid metric".

When Arctic sea ice extent sets a new record low in September, the following arguments will be run in parallel:

• There will be a frantic search for a definition of extent in which a new record was not set

• There will be a complaint that the satellite record has been blighted by the failure of a sensor and the calibrations needed to get a new sensor in operation have corrupted the record

• It will be claimed that it was all caused by the major Arctic storm that hit in August, and thus can’t be attributed to global warming

• It’s cyclical — it’s all happened before, in the 1930s, and is therefore nothing unusual

• That it’s irrelevant, because it’s not global and not happening where anyone lives so can’t possibly matter.

When the sea ice extent and area anomalies blow out to record levels in early October because of the delayed freeze-up, there will be silence.

When the re-freeze starts, and the Arctic basin is covered in ice once more (early December), Anthony Watts will report on the record rate of ice formation, calling it a "stunning recovery".

When a cold spell hits the Eastern US and/or Western Europe in December/January, caused by a major Arctic Oscillation excursion and the resulting big slow-moving loops in the polar jetstream, the usual suspects will cackle loudly that global warming has suffered another mortal blow from which it will never recover.

Long range forecast for the next five years, until the Arctic Ocean is ice free in summer? Rinse and repeat.

HOT TOPIC NZ
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
450. BobWallace
8:01 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



anytime another country tries to use alternate energy people think they are building nuke weapons or look at the keystone pipeline they voted against so they could ship it via rail...then green energy companies pander money it sounds all good but money brings out the greed...


I think I might bust something if I worked hard enough to fully understand that post.

Let me just say "Have a nice day"....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
449. BobWallace
7:59 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



most people are on board with CC; but what i see lacking is what are we going to do about it??? hard to give up certain neccessities once ya have attained them....there are more people on the globe gaining advanced living conditions thus = pollution who is going to decide who has to cut back now???


The rest of the world is doing something.

The US is definitely not in the lead when it comes to doing something. We are tagging along behind.

--

No one has to cut back. We just have to use different energy inputs. Walk away from fossil fuels and use sunlight, wind, deep-Earth heat, tidal movement and a few other widely available and plentiful energy sources.

It's something like moving from horses to cars. When we used horses it was because we didn't have a better alternative. Once cars were invented and became practical we moved away from horses.

We, IMO, are at a point of massive change for the world. It's the end of the fossil fuel era and the beginning of the renewable energy era.

Less developed parts of the world are likely to become ~100% renewable energy countries faster than the US because they will don't have fossil fuel infrastructure to "protect". Just like they totally smoked us in adopting cell phones.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
448. Snowlover123
7:56 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
The GISS July 2012 Surface Temperature anomaly came in, and there are some interesting results.

The Northern Hemisphere had the third warmest July on record, wheras the Southern Hemisphere had it's coolest July since 2004.

Globally, it ranked the 13th warmest July, with an anomaly of 0.47 Degrees C.



Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
447. yoboi
7:55 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Of course not.

Right now we could move most (>80%) of our personal transportation to electricity. Tell me who could not do their normal driving with either a 100 mile range EV or a 300 mile range PHEV which can be refueled just like any petroleum driven vehicle?

We could move >50% of our air travel to electrified rail. For moderate length trips we would get there faster and in more comfort on high speed rail than flying.

Right now we could produce >30% of our electricity from renewable sources without adding any additional storage to our grids. That would allow us to take all the coal off our grids and start cutting back on natural gas usage.

We could take another big hunk off the top via efficiency. Just switching from incandescent to more efficient lighting should cut our residential and commercial electricity use by close to 10%.

We have thousands of existing dams which could be converted to pump-up storage. But we probably don't need to do that as we seem to have cheap utility scale batteries coming. Increased storage, of whatever type, allows us to use less NG.

There's no reason to suspect that we couldn't go almost carbon-free for personal transportation and electricity and not suffer even a tiny decrease in quality of life. In fact, getting coal out of our air would improve our quality of life.

And - renewable energy will give us cheaper personal transportation and electricity.




anytime another country tries to use alternate energy people think they are building nuke weapons or look at the keystone pipeline they voted against so they could ship it via rail...then green energy companies pander money it sounds all good but money brings out the greed...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
446. BobWallace
7:50 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



what is the solution??? go back to the dark ages???


Of course not.

Right now we could move most (>80%) of our personal transportation to electricity. Tell me who could not do their normal driving with either a 100 mile range EV or a 300 mile range PHEV which can be refueled just like any petroleum driven vehicle?

We could move >50% of our air travel to electrified rail. For moderate length trips we would get there faster and in more comfort on high speed rail than flying.

Right now we could produce >30% of our electricity from renewable sources without adding any additional storage to our grids. That would allow us to take all the coal off our grids and start cutting back on natural gas usage.

We could take another big hunk off the top via efficiency. Just switching from incandescent to more efficient lighting should cut our residential and commercial electricity use by close to 10%.

We have thousands of existing dams which could be converted to pump-up storage. But we probably don't need to do that as we seem to have cheap utility scale batteries coming. Increased storage, of whatever type, allows us to use less NG.

There's no reason to suspect that we couldn't go almost carbon-free for personal transportation and electricity and not suffer even a tiny decrease in quality of life. In fact, getting coal out of our air would improve our quality of life.

And - renewable energy will give us cheaper personal transportation and electricity.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
445. yoboi
7:48 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Please. That particular "argument" is akin to a spoiled child threatening to hold his breath until he dies if his mean old mommy and daddy won't let him have his own way. I realize that one of the sturdiest of planks in the denialist platform is to cry about the world going back to the dark ages if people can't enjoy their god-given right to suck every last bit of oil out of the ground and pollute the oceans and fill the air with greenhouse gases so that they can top off their Hummers and drive to the mall, but it's a specious complaint, and one with no basis at all in reality. What say you try another tack?I'll give you the answer I've given every time this particular tired and ancient complaint has cropped up: until such a time as denialist* voices are silenced, nothing will get done no matter how much porch-leaving anyone does. IOW: there's value in correcting the lies and distortions. Great value.

* - Not true skeptics...



most people are on board with CC; but what i see lacking is what are we going to do about it??? hard to give up certain neccessities once ya have attained them....there are more people on the globe gaining advanced living conditions thus = pollution who is going to decide who has to cut back now???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
444. Daisyworld
7:30 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
While I agree with your sentiment, OL, I have to say that I don't think you quite covered all the possible reasons a person might frequent this site. To wit (and I'm basing this on years of personal observation and experience):

1) Learn in detail the many tactics used by denialists, both the casual type and those who are employed by the Professional Denial Industry.

2) Learn to identify which online and real world climate resources are legitimate and credible, and which aren't.

3) Learn which strategies to use in combating denialism.

4) Practice all that you've learnt.

I'm also not of the opinion that Snowlover succeeded in "distracting and sowing discord among us". For one thing, that ascribes to him far more power than he deserves or could possibly possess. And for another, based on my four-part list above, dealing with him is good sparring practice for folks, practice they'll need before stepping into the ring with actual heavy hitters--denialists like Watts, Bastardi, and the like.

While I partially agree with this, there's a fine line between a sparring ground and mob rule. I haven't seen any evidence to the latter, but others are correct in that this looks really bad to casual viewers of Dr. Rood's comments. I'd like to think that those of us who enjoy and discuss his scientific topics, that we can do so with an air of friendliness and respect despite our differences.

With that said, Neo is right in that denialists lurk here and to try and make his blog look bad by inserting comments meant to sow discord and resentment, despite whether it was successful or not. Where they come from and who they may or may not work for could be beside the point. They're here. So, what do we do about it? More importantly, what does Dr. Rood himself want us to do about it? Aside from admin intervention and the conduct policy, there's no rank structure here, and not one of us holds any more weight than the other except in the way of how we conduct ourselves.

So, here's a quick review of the WU rules of conduct:

1. Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
2. Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
3. Foul language is not allowed.
4. Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
5. Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
6. No spam.

My views on the rules of conduct with respect to what's happened here:

#1 - I saw no evidence of personal disputes whatsoever, just ideological.
#2 - Despite Misanthrope's and Snowlover123's self-victimization, I saw no evidence of threats or intimidation whatsoever.
#3 - I occasionally see foul language throughout WU, but never rampant.
#4 - I saw no adult topics brought up whatsoever.
#5 - Now THIS may be occurring, but only admin would know for sure if new users were being created by banned users with the same IP. Not much we can do here.
#6 - Unless pushing bum science literature is considered spamming, it's not really an issue either.

Overall, I don't see any issues. All I know is I'm tired of this argument with Snowlover123, and each of his points have been thoroughly refuted. He's done his damage, and the more we pick this over, the more he sits back in his chair and laughs at us, content thinking he was successful in sowing his seed of discord (that was his primary goal the whole time, after all).

So you know what? Let's not give him the satisfaction. I'm holding no grudges, and not offended by anything that's happened here. We've laid out some good sub-topics congruent to Dr. Rood's blog entry, discussed some good issues/good science, got to know one another, and hopefully, no one took anything too personally. After all, if we start taking things personally via comments in an internet blog, we REALLY need to rethink our life priorities...
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 852
443. Neapolitan
7:27 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting yoboi:



what is the solution??? go back to the dark ages???
Please. That particular "argument" is akin to a spoiled child threatening to hold his breath until he dies if his mean old mommy and daddy won't let him have his own way. I realize that one of the sturdiest of planks in the denialist platform is to cry about the world going back to the dark ages if people can't enjoy their god-given right to suck every last bit of oil out of the ground and pollute the oceans and fill the air with greenhouse gases so that they can top off their Hummers and drive to the mall, but it's a specious complaint, and one with no basis at all in reality. What say you try another tack?
Quoting yoboi:


Lawrence T Belton said are you going to sit on the porch crying all the time or you going to get up and try to fix things???
I'll give you the answer I've given every time this particular tired and ancient complaint has cropped up: until such a time as denialist* voices are silenced, nothing will get done no matter how much porch-leaving anyone does. IOW: there's value in correcting the lies and distortions. Great value.

* - Not true skeptics...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13472
442. yoboi
7:27 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I generally agree with you--you know that--but I believe you to be off-base here.

First, your "bunch of old guys" and "sacrosanct dogma" and "self-righteous" lines run counter to your own complaint about insults. Pot, kettle, and all that.

Second, no one is "attempting to bully the kid into submission". As someone else said, climate change is most likely the greatest threat we've faced in modern times, and ensuring we make it through the coming years and decades with the least amount of damage requires much serious and honest discussion. So anyone wanting to sit at the table to shout their own unsubstantiated opinions needs to be aware that the serious people aren't playing tiddlywinks; those who have the temerity (to use your phrase) to not be honest just may get hurt.

See, the issue isn't his "temerity to challenge [our] sacrosanct dogma"; it's his ideological unwillingness and/or inability to stick with the science, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge the vast and overwhelming amount of data supporting AGWT, and his declared fondness for a small, cherry-picked batch of denialist papers. Given the gravity of the situation, that bothers me. Greatly. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Because this is my planet, too, I'm of the opinion that denialists' fists have already connected with my nose. So I'm swinging back. And I'll do the same with any son, daughter, niece, nephew, or any other relative or friend or acquaintance or stranger. It's that dire. It's that important.


Lawrence T Belton said are you going to sit on the porch crying all the time or you going to get up and try to fix things???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
441. yoboi
7:11 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
This is a copy of some notes I took. It should be condensed into a more concise statement, but out of laziness, let me share it as found...

Original source - Think Progress

"Exxon Mobil tells its investors that “rising greenhouse gas emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems that could be significant.”

Chevron says on its website: “[T]he use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases … There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment.”

Conoco Phillips goes further: “Conoco Phillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” BP even cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on its website.

And Shell urges that “CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/issue/


------------------------------------------------- -

More...

Exxon Mobil

"Environmental performance (including GHG emissions) is assessed and recognized through the annual planning and budget process. During this process, key
strategies and objectives are established for each business line for both the short and long term. During the initial planning meeting and then each quarter, results
are stewarded against prior commitments.

Society currently faces, and will continue to face, two major, global energy-related challenges. The first is to maintain and expand energy supplies to meet growing
global demand. The second challenge is to address the societal and environmental risks posed by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Managing GHG emissions and energy challenges requires action by individuals, companies, and governments. This will require an integrated set of solutions, and
for ExxonMobil, this includes increasing efficiency; advancing lower-carbon energy technologies; and supporting effective, national and international policies. Our
efforts aim not only to reduce emissions from our operations, but also to reduce emissions by end users of energy.

At ExxonMobil, our strategy to reduce GHG emissions is focused on increasing our own energy efficiency in the short term; implementing current proven emission reducing technologies in the near and medium term; and developing breakthrough, game-changing
technologies for the long term.

--

While climate change remains extraordinarily complex, increasing scientific evidence makes it clear that rising GHG emissions pose risks to society and
ecosystems. These risks justify the development and implementation of responsible actions by governments, companies, and individuals.
ExxonMobil believes that the long-term objective of a climate change policy should be to reduce the risk of serious impacts on society and ecosystems, while
considering the importance of energy to global economic development."

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/cdp_inv estor_2011.pdf

-------------------------------------

Chevron

"At Chevron, we recognize and share the concerns of governments and the public about climate change. The use of fossil fuels to meet the world's energy needs is a contributor to an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs)—mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane—in the Earth's atmosphere. There is a widespread view that this increase is leading to climate change, with adverse effects on the environment."

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange /

-------------------------------------

Conoco Phillips

"Conoco Phillips recognizes that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate."

http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/policies/ climate_change_position/Pages/index.aspx

-------------------------------------

Royal Dutch Shell

"Population growth and economic development are driving energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. We believe the best way Shell can help secure a sustainable energy future is by focusing on four main areas: natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency."

http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_soc iety/environment/climate_change/

----------------------------------------

Saudi Aramco

"Saudi Aramco shares the world's concern that climate change is a long-term challenge, and we are working to play a leading role in developing and implementing technological solutions in a responsible manner."

http://www.aramcooverseas.com/en/about-us/about-s audi-aramco/

-------------------------------------------------

Hess

"We encourage the U.S. government to work with other countries to reach a global solution to climate change that encompasses developed and developing countries. We believe that establishing a global emissions market will facilitate emissions reductions in the most cost effective manner. Our experience in the European Union, its trading scheme and emissions reduction projects, provide guidance on how we manage greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for our operations in other parts of the world.

Our company recognizes the financial implications, risks and opportunities that come with climate change. We continue to evaluate a full range of options to responsibly manage our greenhouse gas emissions."

http://www.hess.com/reports/sustainability/US/200 8/Environmental%20Performance/ClimateChange.aspx

----------------------------

China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Pemex (Mexican state oil company) have made similar statements



what is the solution??? go back to the dark ages???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2336
440. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:29 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Delete
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
439. Birthmark
6:28 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
And for another, based on my four-part list above, dealing with him is good sparring practice for folks, practice they'll need before stepping into the ring with actual heavy hitters--denialists like Watts, Bastardi, and the like.

There is an easier way. It's a bit whimsical, so it may not appeal to American sensibilities: Treat Watts' site, and others like it, as satire sites similar to Denial Depot or The Onion.

When materials whose source is Goddard are cited, I will point out what gifted comic "Triple Point Goddard" is, and point out to the poster that they have been taken in by satire.

Hey, it sounds a lot more fun than arguing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
438. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:09 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
437. OldLeatherneck
5:57 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
1) Learn in detail the many tactics used by denialists, both the casual type and those who are employed by the Professional Denial Industry.

2) Learn to identify which online and real world climate resources are legitimate and credible, and which aren't.

3) Learn which strategies to use in combating denialism.

4) Practice all that you've learnt.

I'm also not of the opinion that Snowlover succeeded in "distracting and sowing discord among us". For one thing, that ascribes to him far more power than he deserves or could possibly possess. And for another, based on my four-part list above, dealing with him is good sparring practice for folks, practice they'll need before stepping into the ring with actual heavy hitters--denialists like Watts, Bastardi, and the like.


Neap,

Thanks for the augmentation to my list. It is a sad but true commentary when learning the complexities of the many sciences involved in Global Climate Change may be far easier than dealing with the Denialists who thrive on spreading disinformation.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
436. robodave
5:34 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
There's still a lot of political baggage with AGW. The media channels and the white house and the figure heads like to pull a fast one and make it appear that there's no underlying backroom disagreement. Amongst climate scientists, it's true there's little disagreement. But among common people there exists not a small minority which suspects the human contribution to AGW is minimal and perhaps greatly exaggerated. Not unexpectedly a great deal of them are republicans or conservative political stance. While this tide is slowly changing, leaders must still grapple with it when confronting the issue of AGW. But in the act of sweeping this disagreement under the rug, they do a disservice to the people because it gives them a mistaken impression. For those who happen to be part of the minority which believes the human contribution to AGW to be minimal, it's an attack on their integrity. I realize leaders (both scientific and otherwise) have the desire to sow peace and rightness and to thwart discord or division. They realize that even the slightest hint of argument in the AGW issue can create a small but ever infecting splinter that bleeds doubt and discontentment. Was it Lincoln that said a divided house cannot stand? So always their goal is to give the outward appearance of firm and unshaking agreement, to stun opposition, to quiet doubt, to unite and move forward. But I must wonder if there's a way to both solve AGW and to engage the disagreement in such a way that it's not inflammatory towards those who bring the minority viewpoint? Or do we sabotage our efforts to solve AGW by feeding the minority? Perhaps in solving AGW we cannot avoid it. But I, myself, privately, have as much respect for a denier as I do anyone else. So it's not in my nature to create the impression that agreement is whole and complete. Instead, I have to honestly admit that there's still a sizeable minority which disagrees with the commonly held viewpoint that AGW is mostly a human-driven process riding on the back of mother nature.

What point is there in being honest about it if they're a minority and they're still blatantly wrong? Well, it's in my character to respect people, no matter their thoughts, even the dumb ones. If I were leader, I'd be honest and acknowledge their concerns, but I'd also have to say that I must turn to the guidance of peer review and consensus and our climate science experts. Wrong or right, that is what I must do since I am a leader and it's my role to make these sorts of choices. A leader doesn't exist to voice his/her own mind, but to make a judgment he/she feels is fair to the greatest number of people. This conclusion is reflected in the nearly unanimous agreement among climate scientists, the majority agreement that humans are responsible for AGW and the vast numbers of peer reviewed study into the matter. But always I admit private doubts. Even wrongheaded ones that reveal my prejudice and/or my ignorance. Humility is not weakness, it's just a sign that you're human. And that's good for a leader.
Member Since: August 9, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 147
435. Neapolitan
5:15 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Let's get back to doing what we all came here for in the first place.
1. Learn more about the science behind AGW/Climate Change.
2. Learn more about the current and future impacts of AGW/Climate Change.
3. Exchange ideas about we as individuals can cope with an uncertain future.
4. Exchange ideas about what actions/policies should be implemented by governments at the local, regional, national and international levels.
While I agree with your sentiment, OL, I have to say that I don't think you quite covered all the possible reasons a person might frequent this site. To wit (and I'm basing this on years of personal observation and experience):

1) Learn in detail the many tactics used by denialists, both the casual type and those who are employed by the Professional Denial Industry.

2) Learn to identify which online and real world climate resources are legitimate and credible, and which aren't.

3) Learn which strategies to use in combating denialism.

4) Practice all that you've learnt.

I'm also not of the opinion that Snowlover succeeded in "distracting and sowing discord among us". For one thing, that ascribes to him far more power than he deserves or could possibly possess. And for another, based on my four-part list above, dealing with him is good sparring practice for folks, practice they'll need before stepping into the ring with actual heavy hitters--denialists like Watts, Bastardi, and the like.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13472
434. BobWallace
5:12 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
I suspect there is something to be gained by a bit more post mortem discussion.

I'm not ready to label Snow as an intentional troll, but his latter behavior was like that of some people who intentionally disrupt for their own pleasure/purposes.

I suspect that he started with an honest belief that he had stumbled on unrecognized truths (pretty obviously discovered on denier sites) and that he wanted to present his truths to others.

He failed, IMO, because he lacks an understanding how science works. He did not look to see what the most qualified in the field thought about his discovered articles. In a very active field such as climate science you probably don't want to get carried away with five year old publications unless you've spent time in the library seeing how they have held up over the following years.

He further failed because he attempted to "win" by bombarding the forum with the same old stuff, declaring ridiculous things such as an article's authors should be viewed as the best judge of their article's accuracy.

It probably won't be the last time we see someone show up ready to educate us about "the real facts". It's certainly not the first, we've seen many. So what is the best way to deal with these folks?

Certainly letting them have their say and present their case is forgone. Countering with facts, if they exist, is expected. But when they move past factual argument, then what?

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
433. Daisyworld
5:10 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Wow. I sign out for the evening, and find the comments have exploded overnight.

Quoting Birthmark:

Ok. That's the funniest thing I've read on this blog. I bow before the master...as I drink my (sadly) duty-free iced tea.


The credit goes 100% to Xulonn, whose keen eye caught Snowlover123 in his logical fallacy. The rest of us had been so bleary-eyed with his repetative non sequitur comments that we were too beleagured to notice it. I apologize if my snarkiness caused any undue distress to anyone; it was intended as a friendly jab.

Quoting misanthrope:


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.



Misanthrope, be very, VERY careful how you use that word "bully". There was no physical or verbal attack on Snowlover123's person. As far as I saw, the only attack was on his arguments, and that's an extremely important distinction. Attack's on one's person is what can be seen as an ad hominem attack; they are singled out individually for the purpose of insulting or belittling them to invalidate their argument. That's NOT what happened here. Snowlover123 brought an argument to the forum for the purpose of discussion, and then that discussion turned into an argument when Snowlover123 asserted a number of false truths. That argument was then summarily attacked. Despite his hollow complaints to the contrary, at no time was Snowlover123's person ever attacked, insulted, or belittled. Nor was he ever bullied or truly became the victim of ad hominem. Any suggestion to the contrary should be interpreted as an attempt at self-victimization.

I, for one, am tired of discussing this. I asked several times for Snowlover123 to stop his prolific commenting, and he hasn't. Now misanthrope steps in and tells the rest of us to stop "bullying" him after we played his little game. OldLeatherneck and Xulonn are correct. Let's end this and move on. I consider this issue concluded.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 852
432. Xulonn
4:49 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Thanks for that post, OldLeatherneck. I think a day of post-mortem reflection and regrouping around our real purpose here is a good thing. It was obvious that most of the regulars here went way out of their way to politely rebut Snowlover123's posts when he first blasted onto the scene here. However, like what some call the right-wing noise machine, he refused to accept any criticism, and pursued his dogmatic posting relentlessly, and seemed to believe that if you repeat the flawed or downright false information often enough, some people will begin to believe it.

Again, with my interest in the psychological issues related to CC/AGW, including the tactics of denialists, I think you really nailed it with your observation of the discord that Snowlover123 has successfully sown here. One thing we cannot measure is the damage done to the perceptions of the lurkers who come here looking for information and reasoned discussion and debate about CC/AGW.

Snowlover123 accused me of ad hominem "attacks" because I suggested that he might be on the payroll of an organization that supports right-wing denialist blog trolls that are paid so sow dissent and create chaos at web forums like this one. Since his tactics and posting style fit the profile of the paid trolls, I think is was fair to consider the possibility, and mention my suspicion. I did not have enough evidence to actually accuse him of paid anti-AGW trolling.

I was a bit surprised at the rapid, deservedly snarky, reaction by the regulars to my observation that one of Snowlover's statements seemed to indicate that he didn't believe in the foundations of peer-reviewed science. However, that slip was a strong, perhaps unconscious, self indictment of a person who posts an repetitive avalanche of mostly discredited science with silly, repetitive demands for proof and papers. Snowlover's prolific rapid-fire posts might appear, to the casual observer with limited exposure to how science works, to be based on good science. I think it is appropriate, if Snowlover is indeed gone for now, to state now that he essentially invalidated most of his posts in his whirlwind path through this site over the past several days with that one comment.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1422
431. OldLeatherneck
4:01 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Back Up.......Re-Group.......Let's Think for a Minute!!

In the past two weeks this blog has been overwhelmed with posts from and replies to an individual going by the name of Snowlover123.

In the aftermath of those experiences, I see various members, each of which I respect greatly and consider comrades, beginning to snipe at each other. Each individual is allowed to respond to any post in any manner they choose as long as it doesn't violate the Wunderground guidelines.

If Snowlover123's intent was to prove any scientific points, he failed miserably.

If Snowlover123's intent was to distract and sow discord among us, he may have succeeded.

Let's get back to doing what we all came here for in the first place.
1. Learn more about the science behind AGW/Climate Change.
2. Learn more about the current and future impacts of AGW/Climate Change.
3. Exchange ideas about we as individuals can cope with an uncertain future.
4. Exchange ideas about what actions/policies should be implemented by governments at the local, regional, national and international levels.
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
430. BobWallace
3:53 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


And for the record, there isn't any dogma here. There are a lot of people who think there is a serious problem and don't have time to waste with clutter-spam attacks. There is a difference between the two and recognizing that is not bullying.



This is not a dogma-friendly neighborhood. There's little tolerance for beliefs which are not supported by facts.

Bring an idea. Bring facts to back it. And be willing to consider alternative information that might show that your facts are not up to snuff.

When you come with a position, a belief, along the lines of "the Earth hasn't warmed in the last 15 years" and try to support that belief with cherry-picked data points while dismissing the mass of data that says you are wrong you should expect some serious push back.

----

"Bullying" is a very inappropriate term to bring to this kerfuffle. Introducing that idea and accusing those who have insisted on facts over fiction is, I suspect, an instance of attempted bullying.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
429. BobWallace
3:42 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
I admire what Geldoff has done in public service. I've listened to Boomtown Rats songs without turning off the radio, they're not bad songs but they aren't something I'd spend money to own. I totally understand that different people like different music and I've absolutely no problem with that.

My "issue" is with Mis dropping a post that he thinks says something and continuing to be opaque. I dislike "read my mind" games.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
428. greentortuloni
3:33 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


Was that initial post about saving lives in Africa?

I've yet to figure out what Mis was on about....


I didn't understand the point of the post either. In fact i never paid much attention to the lyrics of that song, I just assumed it was about hating Mondays in the generic sense, rather than a deeper meaning. I think that is true for most works of art: I really liked TS Eliot in high school until my english teacher explained the meaning behind, for example, "The journey of hte Magi" (one possible interp.).

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,
But had thought they were different; this Birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

It seemed I might as well listen to Zeppelin at that point; change something so human and beautiful to a bunch of religious blah blah blah.

But Geldoff gets a pass with me, even if his songs are laced with shite deeper meanings, for the work he tried to do. I get the impression he would be fun to drink with for the first two hours, and then hell the second two. Or perhaps the opposite, actually. But I've drank with worse and for work done, wouldn't mind buying him a beer, even if I had to listen to the Boomtown Rats to do it.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
427. BobWallace
3:06 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Aw, com'on, you can-t criticise Geldoff here. He did more than any other independent person to save lives in Africa. It may have ended ineffectively but if I saw him, I'd buy him a beer.


Was that initial post about saving lives in Africa?

I've yet to figure out what Mis was on about....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
426. Neapolitan
2:23 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:

Sorry, but on one hand you're telling me that you're not trying to bully anyone and on the other you're telling me that the kid may get hurt if he doesn't play by the rules that you've established?

I sense a bit of a disconnect here.

No, the disconnect is in your confusing the term "bullying" with "asking someone to substantiate their many repeated claims that fly in the face of established scientific fact, and losing patience with them when they refuse to do so". Again the world can no longer afford to waste time with denialists, so if they're unable to verify the claims that they themselves have voluntarily brought to the table--or if they're unwilling to even try, as in this case--they're going to be challenged. That's just the way it is.

(And you should know that they're not the "rules I've established"; they're the rules established through many centuries of scientific investigation. IOW, that's just how it's done.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13472
425. greentortuloni
2:01 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:

Sorry, but on one hand you're telling me that you're not trying to bully anyone and on the other you're telling me that the kid may get hurt if he doesn't play by the rules that you've established?

I sense a bit of a disconnect here.



Good for you for standing up for the weak and standing against bullies.

But I am confused, who do think is which here?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
424. misanthrope
12:32 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:


-snip-

Second, no one is "attempting to bully the kid into submission". As someone else said, climate change is most likely the greatest threat we've faced in modern times, and ensuring we make it through the coming years and decades with the least amount of damage requires much serious and honest discussion. So anyone wanting to sit at the table to shout their own unsubstantiated opinions needs to be aware that the serious people aren't playing tiddlywinks; those who have the temerity (to use your phrase) to not be honest just may get hurt.

-snip-

Sorry, but on one hand you're telling me that you're not trying to bully anyone and on the other you're telling me that the kid may get hurt if he doesn't play by the rules that you've established?

I sense a bit of a disconnect here.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 534
423. misanthrope
12:19 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting spbloom:


Absolutely. Either a) Snowblower actually believes that stuff or b) he's intentionally spamming the blog with it (and even if a it's still spamming because of the repetition). Either way, it's sociopathic behavior.

Upon reflection, it's doubtful that abusing him in writing will have one whit of effect on him, since disrupting the blog with intellectual diarrhea is what he came here for to begin with and I'm sure the pushback was entirely anticipated, probably even desired, so my only regret is that I hesitated so long to pull the trigger with the management. Just expunging him is the only reasonable solution.

Say, what if your niece or nephew became a neo-Nazi and persisted in those views in the face of all reasoned argument? Actually that's not the best example, since climate denialism is more damaging in present circumstances, but still, you'd be all sweetness and light, right?

Er, oh, but wait, you are a misanthrope after all. Forget for a moment there.

Wow, didn't take long at all for Godwin's law to come into play. By the way, some of you guys might want to acquaint yourselves with the "Ignore User" feature of the blogs - it can be a real time saver.


Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 534
422. Birthmark
12:19 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I generally agree with you--you know that--but I believe you to be off-base here.

First, your "bunch of old guys" and "sacrosanct dogma" and "self-righteous" lines run counter to your own complaint about insults. Pot, kettle, and all that.

Second, no one is "attempting to bully the kid into submission". As someone else said, climate change is most likely the greatest threat we've faced in modern times, and ensuring we make it through the coming years and decades with the least amount of damage requires much serious and honest discussion. So anyone wanting to sit at the table to shout their own unsubstantiated opinions needs to be aware that the serious people aren't playing tiddlywinks; those who have the temerity (to use your phrase) to not be honest just may get hurt.

See, the issue isn't his "temerity to challenge [our] sacrosanct dogma"; it's his ideological unwillingness and/or inability to stick with the science, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge the vast and overwhelming amount of data supporting AGWT, and his declared fondness for a small, cherry-picked batch of denialist papers. Given the gravity of the situation, that bothers me. Greatly. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Because this is my planet, too, I'm of the opinion that denialists' fists have already connected with my nose. So I'm swinging back. And I'll do the same with any son, daughter, niece, nephew, or any other relative or friend or acquaintance or stranger. It's that dire. It's that important.

Unfortunately, I can only "+" this once. Very well said and exactly direct as it should be.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
421. Neapolitan
12:06 PM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:
I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.

I generally agree with you--you know that--but I believe you to be off-base here.

First, your "bunch of old guys" and "sacrosanct dogma" and "self-righteous" lines run counter to your own complaint about insults. Pot, kettle, and all that.

Second, no one is "attempting to bully the kid into submission". As someone else said, climate change is most likely the greatest threat we've faced in modern times, and ensuring we make it through the coming years and decades with the least amount of damage requires much serious and honest discussion. So anyone wanting to sit at the table to shout their own unsubstantiated opinions needs to be aware that the serious people aren't playing tiddlywinks; those who have the temerity (to use your phrase) to not be honest just may get hurt.

See, the issue isn't his "temerity to challenge [our] sacrosanct dogma"; it's his ideological unwillingness and/or inability to stick with the science, his steadfast refusal to acknowledge the vast and overwhelming amount of data supporting AGWT, and his declared fondness for a small, cherry-picked batch of denialist papers. Given the gravity of the situation, that bothers me. Greatly. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Because this is my planet, too, I'm of the opinion that denialists' fists have already connected with my nose. So I'm swinging back. And I'll do the same with any son, daughter, niece, nephew, or any other relative or friend or acquaintance or stranger. It's that dire. It's that important.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13472
420. greentortuloni
11:28 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
oh, I'm writing on EST, not the first blogger anymore, i.e. I should read to the end of hte blog before commenting again. Sorry for the repitition.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
419. greentortuloni
11:25 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.



Any blogger who came here and challenged the 'sacrosanct dogma' would be welcome if they had integrity. Snowlover doesn't. I would be absolutely comfortable for any of my relatives to be challenged to develop a sense of integrity. Much worse damage is done by mollycoddling and pity, as you said, learn to deal with it.

And for the record, there isn't any dogma here. There are a lot of people who think there is a serious problem and don't have time to waste with clutter-spam attacks. There is a difference between the two and recognizing that is not bullying.

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
418. greentortuloni
11:13 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Snowlover123:


I think this year's melt is a combination of Climate Change in the Arctic and Natural Variability... (as it always is) how much is due to each, however, is still up for grabs.



What an ultra maroon. And he still won't answer on what his/her solution is. Well able to deal with quoting scripture that supports his/her interpretations... but less so on finding answers to problems.

That is typical of conspiracy theorists: able to prove that Aliens exist and that therefore the government is in some sort of plot... but the solution is a tinfoil hat.

Also typical of current generation of GOP/Tea Party tools who are expert at blaming others and then 'solve' the problem by passing a law restricting other people's rights or else use the magic market solution... but nothing like technical expertise or real ideas.

Snowlover still says blah blah blah and the position behind the madness is still (and not coincidentally, IMHO): do nothing!

Oh wait, a little blurb about solar perhaps or that energy independence is a 'good idea if it ever becomes practical', but for sure nothing that is drastically different from status quo.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
417. greentortuloni
10:51 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


And what was the reason for listening to that lame song?


Aw, com'on, you can-t criticise Geldoff here. He did more than any other independent person to save lives in Africa. It may have ended ineffectively but if I saw him, I'd buy him a beer.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
416. BobWallace
5:37 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.



You did not read carefully.

Snow was given all sorts of opportunity to bring a different opinion to the forum as long as he could back it up with facts.

The problem was, IMHO, Snow set himself up as the sole and ultimate determiner of what are facts and what are not. He claimed superiority over thousands of climate scientists who have spent their careers studying the science and he did so without convincing evidence to support his position.

Or, I should say, with evidence convincing only to himself.

Snow used classic cherry-picking techniques to support a position that no one else found convincing. He got more than a fair chance to make his case and he failed.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
415. BobWallace
5:05 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
disrupting the blog with intellectual diarrhea

Intellectual/foolish = same same.

There's a point at which one has had ample opportunity to make their point. A few giant steps past that point and they have morphed into a pest.



Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
414. spbloom
5:02 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Fellow bloggers, I will agree with Misanthrope and state that we can disagree with posts that are being made and still show respect to those that will choose to make their posts. As long as a fellow blogger remains respectful of our rights to post and remains civil in their conversations, then we equally as well should respect their right to post and be as civil towards them. A simple show of respect is always appreciated by all involved.

Put them on your ignore list, if you so choose.
Refrain from responding to them, if you so choose.

A simple show of respect to those that remain civil in their conversations should be a no brainer. When we are on a blog we are, after all, living in a glass house. Be careful of what you throw.

That is all I have to say. Heed this information, if you wish, or ignore it.

Perhaps this is a better video for the message, Misanthrope?

Respect


I could see your POV if this were just a blog to chat about trivial topics. But it's not. Instead it's an educational forum (albeit a small one) about the biggest crisis with which the human race has ever been faced, a crisis that is also time-sensitive.

That being the case, if someone can so easily junk the discussion threads here, by which I mean create an impression such that first-time and casual readers would rather leave than wade through the crap, and if being polite or refusing to do what's needed to get them banned allows that junking to continue, then yes, I have to say I disagree quite strongly.

Also: "Be careful of what you throw." Why? Didn't you just finish explaining why you think someone who behaves like snowblower should nonetheless be treated civilly? If so where's the penalty?
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 427
413. spbloom
4:50 AM GMT on August 13, 2012
Quoting misanthrope:


Aretha works for me anytime, anywhere. But, I have to add that what I've seen here disturbs me greatly - a bunch of old guys attempting to bully a kid into submission because he had the temerity to challenge their sacrosanct dogma. You don't agree with the kid, fine, do your best to explain your position then let it go. No need to insult, no need to badger, no need to bully. You're not always going to get your way in life - learn to deal with it.

I'm just wondering if the self-righteous folks who have been commenting here would be comfortable with their niece, nephew, son or daughter being given the same treatment that Snowlover has received.



Absolutely. Either a) Snowblower actually believes that stuff or b) he's intentionally spamming the blog with it (and even if a it's still spamming because of the repetition). Either way, it's sociopathic behavior.

Upon reflection, it's doubtful that abusing him in writing will have one whit of effect on him, since disrupting the blog with intellectual diarrhea is what he came here for to begin with and I'm sure the pushback was entirely anticipated, probably even desired, so my only regret is that I hesitated so long to pull the trigger with the management. Just expunging him is the only reasonable solution.

Say, what if your niece or nephew became a neo-Nazi and persisted in those views in the face of all reasoned argument? Actually that's not the best example, since climate denialism is more damaging in present circumstances, but still, you'd be all sweetness and light, right?

Er, oh, but wait, you are a misanthrope after all. Forget for a moment there.
Member Since: May 12, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 427

Viewing: 463 - 413

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.